Excerpt from MS Thesis: Post 74th Constitutional Amendment Ward Governance in Mumbai...
Chapter I: Introduction Excerpt
For the past 20 years the mechanism of democratic decentralization- the transfer of political, administrative, and fiscal authority to sub-national and sub-state levels of government along with increased levels of citizen participation—goes largely unquestioned as an indispensable component to any country’s social, political, and economic development. “In decentralization, the policy makers see a panacea for the many ills affecting the society” (Rao 2001; p.3). Decentralization became en vogue largely due to the twin processes of liberalization and globalization that magnified the inability for central governments to affectively handle economic shocks and changes. The push to decentralize was also nurtured by the idea that the responsibility for facilitating poverty reduction and empowerment (aka development) must be moved from being placed squarely on the shoulders of national governments to being shared among the lower tiers of government as well as the private and civil society sectors. Consequently, good governance—the effective ways in which governments work with civil society organizations and the private sector (via decentralisation measures) to adequately provide for just human provisioning—is now viewed as a relational network (Baud 2004) with the Nation/State giving up its monopoly and taking on more of a facilitating/oversight role. “The idea [now] is that governments are more able to steer policies in directions, which reduce poverty, when organizations of the poor are included in the networks of governments and firms providing services as well” (Baud 2004), In order for this type of public-private-civil network to benefit the poor it must come in the form of participatory governance—governance which “repositions citizenship as agency” (Cornwall and Gaventa 2001; p.6) and allows people, in particular the poor and pro-poor organizations, to participate and become agents in the processes which affect their livelihoods such as goal determination, and policy development, implementation, and monitoring. Thus, they must include “New Democratic Spaces” (NDS’s) spaces within the public sphere which allow for increased citizen and civil society and/or private sector involvement in governing (Cornwall 2002). The spaces decentralization and other “democratic experiments” can create are differentiated between “invited spaces” (spaces created by government mandate) and “popular spaces” (created by private citizens or groups for the purpose of government protest, service delivery, solidarity, and/or self-help) (Cornwall 2002; p.2). This envisioned mode of network participatory governance or multi-stakeholder arrangements (MSAs) (especially those which include NDS’s) are commonly viewed as the best approach for strengthening livelihoods and promoting accountable governance, particularly in an urban context (emphasis mine, Baud and Dhanalakshmi 2005).
As a result of the above mentioned shifts in ideas about what good-governance is and what type of arrangements work, the local governments became (in theory) a major actor in both development planning and general governance. City governments in particular, due to the economic significance of cities in both national and global economies, became of great interest to development scholars, planners, and activists, who prior had focused mainly on rural areas. Whereas before the 1970s’ economic shake-ups, “one institution dominated—the State, whether simply national or imperial…the domination of the state ensured the primacy of politics over economics, of public discretion over markets,” (Harris, N 2003; p. 2), now most States have been forced or opted to transfer some of their powers to local governments who are now seen as better able to adequately use resources and to respond more quickly and appropriately to shocks and changes. Cities’ governments must be able to plan their own infrastructure projects in order to facilitate the flow of products, people and information and must provide the necessary services to ensure an adequate quality of life for its citizens and visitors. Centrally designed, unilateral, and long term plans are no longer seen as adequate in cities struggling to compete for hub status in a global economy (Harris, N 2003). In sum, local governments have emerged as very relevant in the quest for more widespread and equitable development for three main reasons: (1) their institutional significance regarding service delivery of local goods and services, (2) the failure of the central and state governments to provide and plan adequate economic development and consequent increases in quality of life, especially in developing countries and (3) the central and states inability to deal with the regionally specific changes and shocks of economic globalization (Oomen, M A; p.897).
While empowered local governments, which include MSAs and/or NDS’s hold much potential, many in the International Development Studies field point out that the existence of governance networks and formal rules for citizen participation do not ipso facto make for pro-poor poverty reducing regimes (Cornwall & Gaventa 2001, Williams 2004, and Baud 2004). As such, more research is needed to determine which forms of governance networks best serve the interests of the poor and mitigate against exclusionary practices and capture by elite interests (Baud 2004). Also, concern exists that too much emphasis or credit is being placed on participation, “participatory approaches to [governance] research and development have had relatively little academic or practitioner critique, resulting in a mythologizing of the power of participatory methodologies to accomplish problem solving, emancipation or empowerment” (Hayward et al 2004; p.95). Specifically, there is concern about participatory approaches tendencies to: view communities as homogenous harmonious groups (which blinds them to gender, ethnic, class, and other divisions), pay little attention to the meso, macro, and global systems of power/politics that communities are embedded in, and view participation as inherently positive with little theoretical and empirical validation (Williams 2004).
Also, of particular concern is how little gender analysis work has been done on MSAs and/or NDS’s schemes at the local level. It seems little is known to what extent gender stratification affects participatory local governance processes and outcomes. While many articles addressing the promises and pitfalls of participatory governance elaborate extensively on the dangers of elite capture and nominal participation for the poor, they normally only add a tag line mentioning that gender should be addressed as well. For the most part the scholarship speaks of the participants in these new forms of governance in terms of disembodied citizens, actors, elites, and firms and has yet to sufficiently address the gendered context they form from and operate in. This is problematic as research has shown that gender-blind or neutral processes and organizations tend to reproduce existing unequal power relations as they fail to account for how men and women have different (and at times conflicting) roles, needs, rights, capabilities, vulnerabilities and etc (March et al 1999). Put succinctly, great scepticism exists regarding gender blind or neutral policies abilities to increase equality and the level of women’s substantive participation in gendered communities.
In addition the work of SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency) and SEAGA (the UN’s Socioeconomic and Gender Analysis Programme) on gender and governance participation shows that participatory processes and decentralization do not automatically recognise gender differences and inequalities. They further argue that in particular issues such as: power asymmetries, intra and inter household relations, differing constraints and abilities to participate, and different perceived benefits of participation need to be addressed and accounted for if participatory governance processes are to include women as substantively as men (Woroniuk and Schalkwyk 1998). Also, focusing on the inclusion of women is both important for issues of gender equality in general and for effective and efficient use of local resources. Jo Beall argues that as women are the primary users of local services and the most affected (time and health wise) by inadequate provisioning that they have insights essential to preventing failure and waste.
To compensate for the past and present gender neutrality or blindness some new governance schemes include affirmative action measures, such as India’s quota system which requires one-third of ward council seats to be reserved for women. It is theorized that these types of measures will translate into greater gender aware governance (aka greater sensitivity and promotion of women’s practical and strategic needs) (Batliwaia and Dharnaj 2004). However, this assumption assumes that women form a homogenous and harmonious group and possess a feminist awareness of gender (see gender as a social construct that has in many ways worked to oppress women and is in need of reform) and neglects the extent that relationships between women can be oppressive and how women representatives may be more inclined to align with groups whose interests exist in conflict with those of marginalized groups of women (Murthy 2004). Those sceptical of affirmative action measures ability to promote greater gender equality argue that affirmative action measures on their own do not ensure that governance will become more aware and responsive to gender inequality issues. On the other hand, the arguments in favor of affirmative action measures can be consolidated into the following three camps: gender justice: representation should be proportionate to their population and that as a result of historic subordination of women in the public sphere quotas are necessary, women’s interests: women are an interest group and a larger presence of women in politics will ensure that women’s interests are more adequately recognized and addressed, and women specific resources: women, by nature of being women possess unique qualities that governance could benefit from (for example they are seen as less corrupt, more altruistic and of course, maternal). However, little work has been done to determine what quotas for public office bring to both the women candidates who benefit directly and to women in general. Specifically, it is not clear if these measures bring more than descriptive equality—bringing the demographics of government representatives more in-line with the actual population. Whether or not the women brought into the public sphere by reservation actually view themselves as responsible for promoting women’s interests over their castes and/or party, and if they are willing and able to (aka give substantive “voice” to women as an interest group) remains to be studied at length. Essentially, if this action results in substantive equality[1] remains to be seen.
In light of these concerns regarding which type MSAs and/or NDS’s both strengthen livelihoods and promote accountability, while also promoting greater gender equality, I will undertake an analysis of the participatory governance mechanisms operating on the ground in Mumbai, India’s Ward X[2] to see what this brand of governance delivers in terms of strengthening the livelihoods of the poor, promoting accountability, and promoting gender aware governance.
[1]Substantive equality would mean that the women in these seats are treated fairly and have an equal opportunity and ability to be successful in their position. It also would mean that they are able and willing to use their position to promote women’s gender interests.
[2] Ward X is a pseudonym. For the anonymity of those interviewed, I chose not to refer to the Ward by its actual name.
If you are interested in reading the entire thesis please let me know....
For the past 20 years the mechanism of democratic decentralization- the transfer of political, administrative, and fiscal authority to sub-national and sub-state levels of government along with increased levels of citizen participation—goes largely unquestioned as an indispensable component to any country’s social, political, and economic development. “In decentralization, the policy makers see a panacea for the many ills affecting the society” (Rao 2001; p.3). Decentralization became en vogue largely due to the twin processes of liberalization and globalization that magnified the inability for central governments to affectively handle economic shocks and changes. The push to decentralize was also nurtured by the idea that the responsibility for facilitating poverty reduction and empowerment (aka development) must be moved from being placed squarely on the shoulders of national governments to being shared among the lower tiers of government as well as the private and civil society sectors. Consequently, good governance—the effective ways in which governments work with civil society organizations and the private sector (via decentralisation measures) to adequately provide for just human provisioning—is now viewed as a relational network (Baud 2004) with the Nation/State giving up its monopoly and taking on more of a facilitating/oversight role. “The idea [now] is that governments are more able to steer policies in directions, which reduce poverty, when organizations of the poor are included in the networks of governments and firms providing services as well” (Baud 2004), In order for this type of public-private-civil network to benefit the poor it must come in the form of participatory governance—governance which “repositions citizenship as agency” (Cornwall and Gaventa 2001; p.6) and allows people, in particular the poor and pro-poor organizations, to participate and become agents in the processes which affect their livelihoods such as goal determination, and policy development, implementation, and monitoring. Thus, they must include “New Democratic Spaces” (NDS’s) spaces within the public sphere which allow for increased citizen and civil society and/or private sector involvement in governing (Cornwall 2002). The spaces decentralization and other “democratic experiments” can create are differentiated between “invited spaces” (spaces created by government mandate) and “popular spaces” (created by private citizens or groups for the purpose of government protest, service delivery, solidarity, and/or self-help) (Cornwall 2002; p.2). This envisioned mode of network participatory governance or multi-stakeholder arrangements (MSAs) (especially those which include NDS’s) are commonly viewed as the best approach for strengthening livelihoods and promoting accountable governance, particularly in an urban context (emphasis mine, Baud and Dhanalakshmi 2005).
As a result of the above mentioned shifts in ideas about what good-governance is and what type of arrangements work, the local governments became (in theory) a major actor in both development planning and general governance. City governments in particular, due to the economic significance of cities in both national and global economies, became of great interest to development scholars, planners, and activists, who prior had focused mainly on rural areas. Whereas before the 1970s’ economic shake-ups, “one institution dominated—the State, whether simply national or imperial…the domination of the state ensured the primacy of politics over economics, of public discretion over markets,” (Harris, N 2003; p. 2), now most States have been forced or opted to transfer some of their powers to local governments who are now seen as better able to adequately use resources and to respond more quickly and appropriately to shocks and changes. Cities’ governments must be able to plan their own infrastructure projects in order to facilitate the flow of products, people and information and must provide the necessary services to ensure an adequate quality of life for its citizens and visitors. Centrally designed, unilateral, and long term plans are no longer seen as adequate in cities struggling to compete for hub status in a global economy (Harris, N 2003). In sum, local governments have emerged as very relevant in the quest for more widespread and equitable development for three main reasons: (1) their institutional significance regarding service delivery of local goods and services, (2) the failure of the central and state governments to provide and plan adequate economic development and consequent increases in quality of life, especially in developing countries and (3) the central and states inability to deal with the regionally specific changes and shocks of economic globalization (Oomen, M A; p.897).
While empowered local governments, which include MSAs and/or NDS’s hold much potential, many in the International Development Studies field point out that the existence of governance networks and formal rules for citizen participation do not ipso facto make for pro-poor poverty reducing regimes (Cornwall & Gaventa 2001, Williams 2004, and Baud 2004). As such, more research is needed to determine which forms of governance networks best serve the interests of the poor and mitigate against exclusionary practices and capture by elite interests (Baud 2004). Also, concern exists that too much emphasis or credit is being placed on participation, “participatory approaches to [governance] research and development have had relatively little academic or practitioner critique, resulting in a mythologizing of the power of participatory methodologies to accomplish problem solving, emancipation or empowerment” (Hayward et al 2004; p.95). Specifically, there is concern about participatory approaches tendencies to: view communities as homogenous harmonious groups (which blinds them to gender, ethnic, class, and other divisions), pay little attention to the meso, macro, and global systems of power/politics that communities are embedded in, and view participation as inherently positive with little theoretical and empirical validation (Williams 2004).
Also, of particular concern is how little gender analysis work has been done on MSAs and/or NDS’s schemes at the local level. It seems little is known to what extent gender stratification affects participatory local governance processes and outcomes. While many articles addressing the promises and pitfalls of participatory governance elaborate extensively on the dangers of elite capture and nominal participation for the poor, they normally only add a tag line mentioning that gender should be addressed as well. For the most part the scholarship speaks of the participants in these new forms of governance in terms of disembodied citizens, actors, elites, and firms and has yet to sufficiently address the gendered context they form from and operate in. This is problematic as research has shown that gender-blind or neutral processes and organizations tend to reproduce existing unequal power relations as they fail to account for how men and women have different (and at times conflicting) roles, needs, rights, capabilities, vulnerabilities and etc (March et al 1999). Put succinctly, great scepticism exists regarding gender blind or neutral policies abilities to increase equality and the level of women’s substantive participation in gendered communities.
In addition the work of SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency) and SEAGA (the UN’s Socioeconomic and Gender Analysis Programme) on gender and governance participation shows that participatory processes and decentralization do not automatically recognise gender differences and inequalities. They further argue that in particular issues such as: power asymmetries, intra and inter household relations, differing constraints and abilities to participate, and different perceived benefits of participation need to be addressed and accounted for if participatory governance processes are to include women as substantively as men (Woroniuk and Schalkwyk 1998). Also, focusing on the inclusion of women is both important for issues of gender equality in general and for effective and efficient use of local resources. Jo Beall argues that as women are the primary users of local services and the most affected (time and health wise) by inadequate provisioning that they have insights essential to preventing failure and waste.
To compensate for the past and present gender neutrality or blindness some new governance schemes include affirmative action measures, such as India’s quota system which requires one-third of ward council seats to be reserved for women. It is theorized that these types of measures will translate into greater gender aware governance (aka greater sensitivity and promotion of women’s practical and strategic needs) (Batliwaia and Dharnaj 2004). However, this assumption assumes that women form a homogenous and harmonious group and possess a feminist awareness of gender (see gender as a social construct that has in many ways worked to oppress women and is in need of reform) and neglects the extent that relationships between women can be oppressive and how women representatives may be more inclined to align with groups whose interests exist in conflict with those of marginalized groups of women (Murthy 2004). Those sceptical of affirmative action measures ability to promote greater gender equality argue that affirmative action measures on their own do not ensure that governance will become more aware and responsive to gender inequality issues. On the other hand, the arguments in favor of affirmative action measures can be consolidated into the following three camps: gender justice: representation should be proportionate to their population and that as a result of historic subordination of women in the public sphere quotas are necessary, women’s interests: women are an interest group and a larger presence of women in politics will ensure that women’s interests are more adequately recognized and addressed, and women specific resources: women, by nature of being women possess unique qualities that governance could benefit from (for example they are seen as less corrupt, more altruistic and of course, maternal). However, little work has been done to determine what quotas for public office bring to both the women candidates who benefit directly and to women in general. Specifically, it is not clear if these measures bring more than descriptive equality—bringing the demographics of government representatives more in-line with the actual population. Whether or not the women brought into the public sphere by reservation actually view themselves as responsible for promoting women’s interests over their castes and/or party, and if they are willing and able to (aka give substantive “voice” to women as an interest group) remains to be studied at length. Essentially, if this action results in substantive equality[1] remains to be seen.
In light of these concerns regarding which type MSAs and/or NDS’s both strengthen livelihoods and promote accountability, while also promoting greater gender equality, I will undertake an analysis of the participatory governance mechanisms operating on the ground in Mumbai, India’s Ward X[2] to see what this brand of governance delivers in terms of strengthening the livelihoods of the poor, promoting accountability, and promoting gender aware governance.
[1]Substantive equality would mean that the women in these seats are treated fairly and have an equal opportunity and ability to be successful in their position. It also would mean that they are able and willing to use their position to promote women’s gender interests.
[2] Ward X is a pseudonym. For the anonymity of those interviewed, I chose not to refer to the Ward by its actual name.
If you are interested in reading the entire thesis please let me know....
posted by Green Tara at 1:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home